Reports: 777 crash lands at San Francisco

They could of had throttle problems but according to the media the pilots never mentioned anything like that.

That is the second most likely explanation after pilot error, but a small possibility.

Or bad altimeter, or bad glide scope indicator, or bad vertical speed indicator.

or forgot to adjust altimeter after descending from 18,000 feet. Barometric pressure differs greatly at various altitudes. if you get bad reading then you make mistakes.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
They could of had throttle problems but according to the media the pilots never mentioned anything like that.

The NTSB already ruled that out. They said the engines responded appropriately to the throttles when they tried to abort.

Originally posted by anniquity
The pilot was attempting his first landing at SFO. He was also new to flying the 777.
www.foxnews.mobi...

(From cell)

The first time I flew the 777 I crashed that sucker a few times into the runway because I was used to a lower cockpit in the 737. I was disorientated quite a bit. Flight Simulators are not that bad in simulating real world flying.

Add another minus for the pilots. No ILS and new plane.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


It wasn't his first landing there, it was his 30th. It was his first in the 777. Even if it was his first in the plane, the other pilot should have been paying a lot more attention to the approach, and overridden him at some point. Or pointed out what was going on.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
They could of had throttle problems but according to the media the pilots never mentioned anything like that.

The NTSB already ruled that out. They said the engines responded appropriately to the throttles when they tried to abort.

I guess we can rule that out then. Thanks for the info!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

It wasn't his first landing there, it was his 30th. It was his first in the 777. Even if it was his first in the plane, the other pilot should have been paying a lot more attention to the approach, and overridden him at some point. Or pointed out what was going on.

The other pilot was a brand new instructor. So you have an inexperienced (at least in type) pilot flying and an inexperienced instructor going in to an airport with an out of service ILS and an air traffic control facility that tries to keep you high and "hot" until the bridge for noise abatement purposes. That means that once you're cleared for the visual approach you have to really bust your butt getting slowed down and lower. That's not exactly the recipe for a stabilized approach. My carrier has a number of criteria that must be met at 500 feet above the ground, or an abort and go around is mandatory. Unstabilized approaches are a factor in two/thirds of the approach and landing accidents since 1984.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

It wasn't his first landing there, it was his 30th. It was his first in the 777. Even if it was his first in the plane, the other pilot should have been paying a lot more attention to the approach, and overridden him at some point. Or pointed out what was going on.

Flying a new plane means different configuration of guages, more sluggish response in relation to smaller planes, different feeling altogether. I think this was a big factor that cannot be downplayed.

As for the other pilot correcting him it depends who was mispiloting the airplane. If the pilot was mispiloting then the copilot could have been over-rulled and silenced. I have seen some airplane accidents happen this way on national geographic documentaries.

The other pilot at the controls when the crash occurred had 3200 hours in type.

One of the girls that was killed was found near the aft of the aircraft, while the other was found about 30 feet away from it. The coroner said an autopsy would be performed to find out if one of them died in the crash, or from being run over.

The NTSB said that cockpit conversations appeared normal, with no reports of any problems. The stick shaker activated approximately 4 seconds before impact to warn of a stall. The decision to go around was made approximately 1.5 seconds before impact, the engines were throttled up and appeared to respond normally.

Originally posted by F4guy
reply to post by dowot

 

It's a good thing you're gone from this thread. First, you readily acknowledge ignorance of the subject matter. Then you go on to indict the fly-by-wire system on the 777. A Boeing 777 has NO fly-by-wire sytem. Then you conflate the threshold and displaced threshhold markings with the "touchdown zone" which is usually another 1000 feet or so down the runway. Then you recommend a 3 point landing attitude for a tricycle geared widebody airliner. A three point landing was not even recommended for the tailwheel equipped DC-3, since a "wheel landing" gives much more lateral control. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, why talk? There is absolutely no value added to the conversation.

Sorry, have to come back and reply, but first thanks Zap.

At least I outline where my skills lie or dont lie, so others can add to my knowledge, and I admit, I am happy to learn, always have been, so thanks F4 for what you have imparted.

FBW was mentioned in some earlier post (Obviously not by any professional I see.) as a possibility. No I do not know what this particular 777 is fitted with, it seemed, though, it could be contributory if it was involved and we should, in general, consider all matters when criticising someone or something, to come to a fair judgement.

Is "indict" the word you really meant to use? Verb-Formally accuse or charge (someone) with a serious crime: "indicted for fraud", seems a little strong, but whatever.

All I know about landings, is what the general flyer knows. There is a defined area a plane must/should use to land on. What the various parts are called, I am not really interested in, that is for pilot, ground crew, airport staff etc etc to know. To be honest, I am not sure I did "conflate" the areas, I was using general terms for a runway. Threshold=edge. Touchdown=place where wheels are on the ground.

Looking at the aerial photo, I see the tailplane (Or whatever you want to call it), some undercarriage, a plane and an engine, spread about. That seems to indicate the plane reached land, crossed the runway threshold and made a touchdown or the wheels would have been somewhere else?

I come from a time when a 3 point landing meant exactly that. All 3 wheels were on the ground. (Not necessarily 3 I grant you, some planes had more others less. In other words a safe landing. This was opposed to a "Pancake" landing, or a slightly less safe landing.

I know, all very old talk, and I hope I am adding to information and not teaching my Grandmother to suck eggs.

Just as an aside, did you view the link I supplied? Is that your take on the situation? Seems to me,a layman, a fair assessment of the facts as known at that time.

Now, unless I have to defend myself. I will leave all those in the know to pontificate about what they know and how much better they are than anyone else and await the outcome of the official and probably correct official report.

(During WW2 my mother worked for the AID or was it AIB, checking plane production and flying standards. I remember reading her note books, with wing angles, shapes, propeller profiles, angles of attack, joint strengths, metal stress and a lot of other things.Not much I know, but kept a few planes from crashing no doubt.)

reply to post by Zaphod58


I have only flown SEL( put puts) but you should easily be able to recognize situations that are not normal as far as attitude and airspeed not to mention altitude . The second in command must have been distracted or he would have seen it . Complacency is a large factor for situations leading to accidents . The cockpit recorder probably will show distraction . The pilot trainer could also have been testing the pilot and waited too late to take the plane . In any case the Senior pilot with 3200 hours in type was responsible for the crash . The 43 hour in type pilot in command was training and should not have been a factor in the crash.

reply to post by SimonPeter


That's my experience too (with some sailplanes thrown in, and one short stint flying a KC-135). Ultimately, no matter who is flying the captain of the aircraft (Aircraft Commander or AC in the military) is responsible for the aircraft. He may allow the other pilot to make the landing, but the aircraft is ultimately his responsibility.

At this point in time, even with the outside factors contributing, this looks a lot like a breakdown in crew coordination again. That has been responsible for more accidents in history than just about any other factor out there.

This is tragic and I feel for those who lost their lives and were injured... Alot of blame has been laid on the pilot (from MSM) and yes im sure he f'ed up. That being said ,I think he did an awesome job recovering and preventing a total loss of life.. Im not a pilot and i dont know s!@T about flying but, I cant imagine how bad it would be to try and land a skyscrapper, with wings, minus the TAIL in what is arguabley one of the toughest landing strips in the country!! You guys out there who are pilots.. I would like to hear from you, God forbid if you found yourself in that senario..

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Flying a new plane means different configuration of guages, more sluggish response in relation to smaller planes, different feeling altogether. I think this was a big factor that cannot be downplayed.

The new pilot had experience with B747, definitely not a smaller plane by any means.
Clockwise from top left- MD11F, MD-90, 747-400, 777-200.



B777 cockpit is closer to the ground and farther forward; approach speed and landing weight is generally less.
If anything, I'd expect him to have been higher altitude and faster than necessary.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except that someone DID suggest the pilot did a good job. User dowot said it a couple posts above the reply that you quoted.

I understand that he said "a good job", but he meant that the pilot's last minute actions MAY have saved lives. He didn't mean an overall good job cause if that were true the plane never would have crashed to begin with. The Gaul would have gotten an apology anyway if not for the moron comment. Not a big deal anyway though.

I heard turbine engines take awhile to respond so who knows if any last minute actions changed the outcome. I am not an expert on Turbine engines, so I don't know. I feel really bad for the victims families. ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by F4guy A Boeing 777 has NO fly-by-wire sytem.

You might want to fact check this with Boeing...

Okay I haven't seen this posted yet , but I didn't go all the way thru 17 pages so if it has sorry...

Here is a link to the video of the crash, it isn't the best quality but it does the trick I guess...

statter911.com...

reply to post by F4guy

So you have an inexperienced (at least in type) pilot flying and an inexperienced instructor going in to an airport with an out of service ILS and an air traffic control facility that tries to keep you high and "hot" until the bridge for noise abatement purposes.

Your assessment of landing at SFO doesn't match mine. The flights barely clear the peninsula or east bay hills. I'm not saying they scrape the hills, but trust me, I can read tail numbers on the planes as they come in. The plane has to be high enough to clear the San Mateo bridge. But the approach to the runway is as gradual as physically possible. The whole point of flying over the bay is NOT to need extreme noise abatement procedures. Contrast this with flights out of SJC, which have significant noise abatement. The SJC flights get up in the air quickly, immediately level off and fly to the bay, then circle and power up over the south end of the bay to gain altitude.

Sulley was on KCBS dissing SFO. I'd have to find an archive to get his exact words so I don't want to misquote him. However, if I were running the show, I wouldn't have spent the millions to expand the runways at SFO. The airport is fog city. When under fog, the ability to land planes is cut in half. I would have expanded Oakland. Nice and sunny there.

I haven't listened to SFO landings in a while, but I believe they cancel IFR after the bridge and land VFR.

Originally posted by gariac
When under fog, the ability to land planes is cut in half. I would have expanded Oakland. Nice and sunny there.

They already expanded Oakland back in 2009. The fog is not as bad as SFO, but sometimes it's foggy there as well. ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
Okay I haven't seen this posted yet , but I didn't go all the way thru 17 pages so if it has sorry...

Here is a link to the video of the crash, it isn't the best quality but it does the trick I guess...

statter911.com...

nice choice of words with 'done the trick'.

the quality of that video is typical of bad quality CGI video produced
with all these type media fakery events, and this is another example of such an event.
contrast the quality of image for the witness interview with that capturing the 'accident'.
who has any recording devise in 2013 that has such dreadful clarity and quality?

the preponderence of the number seven alone within this narrative should tell you
that all is not right here!

once we can conclude for definite that we are not being punked with another
completely faked story, then we can get into the nitty-gritty of the all contradictory
(as always) morsels that are always thrown our way.

so far the evidence for fakery here is pretty damning.
www.cluesforum.info...

you must all like being punked.

as a treat, here's another seven for ya!

NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said information collected from the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder indicated there were no signs of problems until seven seconds before impact, when the crew tried to accelerate.
news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by F4guy A Boeing 777 has NO fly-by-wire sytem.

You might want to fact check this with Boeing...

It has certain facets that some people will call fly by wire. The Trip 7 has a flight management computer that is coupled to the autopilot. So if you push the "go-around" button, a command is sent to the FMC which commands the autothrottle component to command full power and the command is sent to the flight director to select an initial 15 degree up pitch, and then to adjust pitch to maintain V2 plus 15 knots.
But the 777 has a much different architechture and flight control law software than does the Airbus FBW system. In any event, it really doesn't matter because 214 was not flying a couupled approach using FBW software. There has never been an undershoot or CFIT crash of an airliner, FBW or not, flying a fully coupled precision ILS or microwave approach